Sorting out the public finances Part 2 – Every part of the UK to pay its own way

The only thing more depressing than looking at the hard economic facts about our lowest performing regions is listening to the debate about how to solve the problems. There are two strands to this current debate. Firstly, there is a repetitive list of non-radical solutions (e.g. building new R&D facilities) to be found in all the Local Enterprise Partnership plans submitted yesterday to the Government. My reaction to these sort of solutions is the same as when an acquaintance told me that she was rejecting the normal treatment for cancer (aggressive surgery, chemo, radium, etc) and opting for the much more pleasant route of homeopathy. I wished her well and understood her horror at the thought of radical treatment. But I knew the statistics were against her. Such is the depth of the challenges in our low performing areas that only radical treatment will work. Secondly, there is a near universal clamour now for more devolution of power and money to the local level in the low performing areas. But this usually means devolving decisions on how to spend public money and how much to borrow, assuming that the tab will stick be picked up by others. Credible devolution has to based on requiring local areas to balance their budget locally. The problem underlying these two issues (avoidance of radical treatment and disbelief that low performing areas could ever balance their budget) is the lack of political leadership at a local level: the ability to own and explain the scale of the problem, to act swiftly and fundamentally to find solutions and to get people on board with the changes necessary. Oncologists have learnt how to do this. How could we rapidly help political leaders to be able to bring the right medicine to their areas? And, given it’s hard, do we really need to confront the problem?

At the height of its recent crisis, Greece had a fiscal deficit of 15%. This drew worldwide attention, threatened the European banking system and required an international bail-out in exchange for a brutal turnaround plan, supervised by the Troika of the IMF, the EU and the ECB. The UK’s deficit was also unsustainable, standing at 10% in 2011. However, this national average hid the fact that half of the UK had deficits which were as bad as Greece, or much worse. This meant that almost 3 times as many people in the UK lived in regions with worse deficits than Greece, with its population of just 11m. Three parts of the UK stand out, with 2011 deficits which were more than twice the level reached by Greece – Northern Ireland (39%), Wales (36%) or the North East (32%). But the rest of the North of England (NW and Yorkshire & Humberside) and the Midlands had higher deficits than Greece. By contrast, in 2011 London and the South East were in surplus, whilst Scotland, the East of England and the South West had UK average levels of deficit, albeit it at c10% they were high. A recent study suggests that Greater Manchester, one of the more successful cities in the North, is currently running an annual deficit of £5 billion per year, which would require local people to earn 30% more in wages and profits to break even. Whilst the deficit areas of the UK are now (rightly) asking for more devolution of power and financial responsibility, it is important to note that, ironically, it is only our highly centralised system of government which has stopped these areas going completely bust. Not only would 20-40% deficits have been unacceptable to lenders being asked to fill the gap in regional finances, but if these areas had had to do their own borrowing then the weakest of the areas (running a 20% deficit over 30 years) would find that the majority of their spending today would be on debt interest payments, leaving only 3rd world levels of funding for pensions, health, education, etc. Of course, the lenders would have called time on this situation many years ago, causing a collapse of Argentinian proportions.

There is a lot to do to solve the long-term problems we face. But I propose 3 things which I think are big enough to be game changing:

1. Legislate so that public spending and tax balance in each and every part of the UK within 15 years

We can’t just take regional fiscal deficits for granted – and we don’t need to. Given that the UK needs to balance its budget, it’s no way to run a country if half of it can’t pay its way – particularly if the situation is going to get worse. The main lesson of the Great Financial Crisis for the West was that someone always has to pay. At the moment the deficit areas of the UK have relied on income transfers from London and the South East. But clearly this isn’t enough, which is why the country still has one of the highest deficits in the developed world, in spite of tough cuts over the last few years. Even when the national deficit is eliminated in 2018, this will disguise the ongoing structural deficits in half of the country, some of which will remain in excess of Greece’s deepest crisis. Even if the south of the country could afford to subsidise the rest (which I doubt), it is a very risky strategy for the UK as there are many competitive threats to London and the South East. We all know what happened when we relied on the City of London to pay for the rest of the country’s public spending – it was great whilst it lasted and disastrous when global events turned against us.

So, my proposal is that every nation (Scotland, Wales, NI) and every region of England is required by law to balance its spending and revenue by 2030 and make prescribed progress every 3 years to this 15 year goal. This would include all spending – pensions, health, education, benefits, policing, local authority services, etc – with the exception of capital spending on economic infrastructure. The latter is lumpy (e.g. a high speed railway happens once in a generation) and a genuine investment in economic growth. The taxes (and other revenues) collected in the area would need to cover spending – eliminating any structural deficit. Rules would be set to allow for the economic cycle – small surpluses in good times, small deficits in bad times. Tough rules would also be set to force local areas to sort out their balance sheet – e.g. selling off their social homes given that market rents and social rents are similar in these areas, releasing tens of billions of pounds to reinvest in economic infrastructure like rapid transport links between Northern cities. The nation or region would be given a high level of fiscal devolution, as the only way to balance the budget is to increase taxes or reduce spending. This would be a dramatic step for the UK, which has about the lowest level of sub-national fiscal devolution of any developed country. But it’s necessary. And it’s also obviously possible, as we are going in that direction with Scotland. Irrespective of the independence vote, Scotland already controls the majority of public spending and is about to take on responsibility for the levels of income tax collected in Scotland, taking on the risk and reward of them rising or falling.

My law gives power and accountability to the national governments, but insist that the UK Secretary of State for each nation was equally obliged to achieve the fiscal balance. The national governments and the relevant SoS would be obliged to produce a 15 year plan, with 3 year milestones towards balancing the budget. This would need to be validated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). There would need to be a rolling 3 year budget, which is on track to hit the 3 year milestone. This would be validated by the relevant National Auditor. It is not so immediately easy to choose who should be in charge in the English regions. Ideally, there would, as in London, be strong Mayors leading the metropolitan city regions (Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, etc). But there aren’t. There is lots of current debate about this. Well, maybe, we just need to bite the bullet and do it. One answer would be say that unless a city region chooses to have a Metro Mayor, then a Government Minister would be put in charge of balancing the budget in each city region. He or she would be democratically accountable, but clearly it’s less attractive than a directly elected local politician.

The UK Government would still play a vital role in tax and spend. Firstly, it would still have key national responsibilities, like defence and national security, national transport, economic regulation, etc. Secondly, it would put the financial might of the whole of the UK behind each nation and region’s fiscal position, issuing national bonds, managing the cash flow of spending and revenues, dealing with shocks to the system. Thirdly, it would do much of the administration for nations and regions, such as collecting taxes, paying pensions, etc – but they would pick up the tab in their locally balanced budget.

This fiscal devolution is tough medicine. But it also treats people like grown ups. We have seen how local government and the police have responded in the last few years to having to make large cuts in spend, in exchange for more freedom to make the best local fist of it. At the heart of this devolution is local political leadership and its ability to engage local people in the difficult choices in making the books balance. Much of this is about who pays what tax (e.g. more freedom on council tax rates or National Insurance charges), what levels of entitlement can be afforded (e.g. whether benefit rates or public sector pay should be regional rather than national) and which types of public spending are the real local priorities. But of course, the big opportunity to change the deficit lies in improving the local economy. My other proposals focus on the best ways to do this.

2. Double the number of 25-34 year olds in the designated regions within 15 years

There is a demographic crisis in the deficit areas. Overall population levels are predicted to be either static or have modest growth. But this disguises the problem. On the one hand, the population is growing because people are living longer. And this is what drives public spending – on pensions, on health care, social care, etc. On the other hand, in many areas, the working population is declining. And this is what causes tax revenues to decline. This is the worst possible vicious circle for a future deficit, let alone the local economy. We can see this clearly by looking at the Old Age Support Ratio, i.e. the ratio of the working age population to the retired population. In Leeds, for example, this is currently 3.2 (i.e. 3 times as many working age people as retired). But in 20 years time it will fall to 1.7. Even putting up the retirement age to 70 is not enough to maintain the current ratio. (It would need to be 72).

But why isn’t there a demographic crisis in the South? The answer is simple, if politically uncomfortable. More than a third of London’s residents were born overseas – compared to 1 in 20 in the North East. Indeed, there are now more foreign born people in London than there are residents of any description in the North East! London and the South East have about a quarter of the UK’s overall population but more than half of the foreign born residents. The pace of this divergence between the South and the rest of the UK has really accelerated in the last 15 years. A telling statistic is that until 2001, the North West had a bigger population than London. Now London has 1m more people. It has grown. The North West has been static (like the North East and Wales). 1m more foreign-born residents moved into London in this period. Merseyside, for example, attracted just 29,000 additional foreign born residents between 1995 and 2012. Its working age population will fall by up to 15% over the next 20 years.

It’s very hard to see how the deficit areas can turn themselves around without a major inward migration of working age people. The critical group to attract is the 25-34 year olds. These are the wealth creators, who have turned around many cities in the world – including London. Given the challenges facing the deficit areas, there is a need for a massive increase in the size of this group and it is urgent. Therefore, I propose a target of doubling the size of the age group in the deficit areas within 15 years. That would add about 10-15% to the total population in each of the areas. This is the sort of growth that London and the South East have experienced in the last 15 years. Starting in 2015, this could be a “15 in 15 from 15” strategy.

Where will all these people come from? Well, it’s too late to start breeding, as today’s new born won’t join the labour force in the next 15 years. So it means attracting young people from elsewhere. Partly this can be from other parts of the UK, especially the South. We could adopt a number of targeted policies to achieve this. For example, many of the deficit areas attract large numbers of students, but then struggle to retain them once they graduate. Perhaps we should offer a 5 or 10 year holiday on repaying student loans for those stay in the area to which they moved to study? Perhaps we could offer government backed mortgages for first time buyers who relocate into the area, where payments start low and rise in line with inflation over 25 years (rather than the current opposite which undermines home ownership aspirations for all)? But a large part of the increase will probably have to come from immigration. Let’s save a full argument about immigration for another post. Suffice to say here that I think we need high levels of immigration for 2 reasons – our ageing population and our need to attract the world’s best to the UK – but it needs to be the right immigration, so we need much more control of who comes to the country. In this spirit, one answer to the problems of the North would be offer location-specific visas, entitling people to live and work in a named city or region. This isn’t as impractical as it may first sound. We already do this for the largest group of visa holders – students. A visa is tied to a particular course at at a particular university – if the student fails to attend or leaves the university, the visa is revoked. So it’s entirely feasible to do this for designated areas of the country, perhaps attaching a visa to a job / running a business and payment of Council Tax in the area. This doesn’t just mean offering visas to non EU countries (e.g. to the young Australians, Canadians and South Americans) and seeing what happens. It should also mean investing very heavily in head-hunting the best in the world. Silicon Valley is what it is in large part due to the active recruitment of India’s best software engineers. Why don’t our deficit areas employ headhunters and offer incentives to the world’s smartest 25-28 year olds – the products of the world’s best universities in design, business, applied science, etc and those trained by the world’s best corporations. They aren’t hard to find, but they need a hard sell … and visas.

There is clearly also a hard sell needed within the deficit areas to convince people, who feel that there aren’t enough jobs or public services for those who already live there and believe, wrongly but passionately, that more people moving into the area will just make everyone worse off. It’s not easy to explain the complexity of labour market economics or fiscal sustainability. Let’s try a one word explanation – “Suarez”. The immigration of a Uruguyan into Liverpool has transformed the fortunes of the football club and the morale of at least half of the city. It has also lifted the global status of the city. (The other half of the city has been cheered by the genius of their new Spanish manager.) As Liverpool are poised to win the Premier League, I haven’t heard many local voices calling for South Americans to be sent home so a local lad can have the job! We need the same attitude to the economy as we have to football – busting a gut to get the world’s best people to come, in large numbers, to our deficit areas.

3. Create a bigger private sector in the deficit areas

In half of the country, less than half of working age adults work in the private sector economy. In South East, the richest region, two-thirds of working age adults work in the private economy. In South Wales, it less than a third. Throughout our northern cities (and the largest cities in the Midlands), 6 out of 10 working age adults are not working in the private sector. This includes major business centres like Manchester and Birmingham.

How can we possibly balance our national budget if this continues? One-third of the population is retired, the school leaving age has been raised to 18 … so how can we pay our way if less than half of the working age adults are employed in the private economy? The first problem is simply that in the deficit areas not enough people work, irrespective of who they work for. In the most prosperous parts of the country 9 out of 10 working age adults are in employment. In some of biggest Northern and Midlands cities, this falls less than 6 out of 10. The second problem is that not enough people work in the private sector. The average UK ratio of private to public jobs is 3:1, i.e. three-quarters of jobs are in the private sector. In the most successful areas of the UK, there are 6 private sector jobs for each 1 in the public sector. In the deficit areas many areas struggle to achieve 2:1. In Cardiff and Swansea, for example, there are only 3 private sector jobs for every 2 in the public sector. The problem is not too many public sector jobs. It’s a shortage of private sector jobs. Often the areas with a high proportion of jobs in the public sector have the lowest levels of people working in any sector. One rapid answer to this problem is to move the public sector into the private sector. This is not ideology, but pragmatism. Local public bodies rarely bring any income into the area – they just meet local need. But turn them into real businesses and they will be incentivised to draw business into their area (e.g. taking over the back office functions of public bodies in the high cost South East; attracting overseas private patients into local hospitals; diversifying from public revenues to win private sector business like the Teachers Pension Agency in Darlington has done by winning work from the life insurance industry in London; etc). One would expect the deficit areas (with lower costs and slack labour markets) to have attracted a lot of outsourced activity from higher cost, tighter labour markets. However, the opposite is true. London and the South East earn twice as much income (wages and profits) from outsourced businesses as the North West, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not only does privatising public services offer the chance to bring in external revenue, it also gives a unique opportunity for a dramatic shift in culture in the deficit areas from a public sector focus to a new entrepreneurial era. But this won’t come by simply asking large, Southern based corporations to take over public bodies. My proposal is that we mandate, within 3 years, the transfer of public services (apart from the police) to new employee-owned businesses. The models for this in the private sector are outstanding – world class organisations like John Lewis and Arup. Having our teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, highways engineers, etc owning their own company and having to compete for contracts every few years would mark a historical change in the economy and culture of the deficit areas.


This is radical treatment. And probably no more popular with many people than being told they need radical medical treatment! But balancing the books, importing a workforce that can pay for the ageing society and turning millions of public sector staff into business owners are the sort of measures which could change the survival rates of our struggling areas and, just as importantly, ensure that the whole country can pay its own way. I am not naive about how hard this is for any politicians. And before my radicalism is dismissed as Southern arrogance, I would note that I spent the first 25 years of my life in the North West. When I was little my dad and grandad both worked on the Liverpool docks, then as they were closing we moved for a new job in a factory in the false dawn that was Skelmersdale New Town, where within 15 years most of the new factories closed down too. So I know this is a tough assignment, but I also feel passionately that it must be grasped.


Scottish referendum – it’s the time to change the game, not be complacent.

Please can we forget about the EU referendum in 2017 for the next 8 months and focus on the referendum in hand. The one in Scotland. I have 3 ideas to defeat the “Yes” vote. But why we should bother doing anything when the polls have never shown a majority for independence? Well, I have a horrible gut feel that come September the undecided in Scotland may just think “Why not?”. If they do, then that’s it. Unlike other elections, the losers can’t wait 5 years and win next time. We should remember what happened when Quebec voted on independence from Canada in 1995. Up to 6 weeks before the vote, two-thirds of voters intended to vote “No”. It looked hopeless for the “Yes vote”. But as the phoney war ended, voters focused on the choices and charismatic leaders swayed their audiences. And it all changed. Just 3 weeks later, it was too close to call. Two weeks before the vote, polls showed a lead for the “Yes” vote. In the end, the final vote , with a turnout of 94%, 50.6% “No” and 49.4% “Yes”. It doesn’t come any closer than that. Can I suggest that this is a big wake up call for those who are complacently assuming a “Yes” vote in Scotland in September, given current polls? If you’ve now woken up, I think there are 3 ways that the “Yes” vote could take a different tack.

The first approach is to show some emotion. I passionately want Scotland to stay in the UK. Not because I think it will bad for the Scots to go alone. That’s up to them. I care because I think it will bad for the rest of the UK. It will destroy my sense of Britishness, which is much stronger than my sense of Englishness. By a ratio of 2:1, the non-Scots Brits feel the same. We don’t have a vote. But we do have a voice. And we need to start using it. There is now just 8 months to go. But why are the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish so silent? Well, I think its because we have totally mis-handled devolution. Union is a marriage. There are 3 stages to ending a marriage – living separate lives, formal separation and divorce. We have all known people embark on the earlier stages of living increasingly separate lives but wanting to stay married, only to find themselves on a slippery slope of estrangement and resentment towards divorce. It comes from drifting apart, not talking openly, not creating a new union of stronger equals. Marriage can cope with strong individuals living their own lives, but only if they find new ways to refresh the union. Sometimes estranged couples hold back from divorce because splitting the house or pension fund is too hard. But the love has gone and only financial risks hold them together. To students of UK devolution, this sounds depressingly familiar. As the three smaller nations have become more independent, the UK has not found, or even sought, new ways to refresh the union. The old bonds have weakened, but new ones haven’t been forged. Estrangement has crept up on us. The English haven’t felt able to talk about relationships – as ever. Northern Ireland and Scotland have become more insular. Wales (like Northern England) depends on the Southern English breadwinner and the economics doesn’t allow them to consider breaking away. But Scotland is different. Scotland can pay its own way. It may be a bit worse or a bit better off (depending on how things go). But it can up and leave. After 15 years of devolution and the passing of the financial crisis (the equivalent of the children growing up?), there are only two reasons for Scotland and the UK to stay together. Either splitting the financial assets and liabilities (e.g. oil versus pensions, etc) is too hard. Or we rediscover our love and consciously enter a new period in the marriage. In choosing between these two options, I get enough accountancy in my day job, so I opt for love!

And I do love Scotland. The best proof is that I spent my honeymoon in Glasgow! The best date in our family calendar is our annual week at the Edinburgh festival. I yearn to return to the magic of Sutherland’s pink beaches and sandstone fantasy mountains. But I also love the cultural impact of Scotland on Britain and beyond. I commend Arthur Herman’s compelling book “The Scottish Enlightenment – The Scots’ Invention of the Modern World”. This US historian, without a Scottish gene in his body, tells the compelling story of what Scots got out of union with Britain. They were transformed from the poorest country in Western Europe, bankrupt and ruled by medieval feudalism, by access to the British economy and Empire. But he also tells of what they gave back – so much more than they took. The historic impact of Scots is clear in education, engineering, medicine, economics, literature and philosophy. The biggest part of the impact came from the diaspora, as Scots impacted on the rest of the world, but especially the rest of Britain. It continues today.

So if we need to express our love, it has to get emotional. It’s time to move on from the statistics and the dossiers. I don’t think either side can win this on hard data and known facts. Scotland is a perfectly viable independent nation. And the rest of the UK would survive without Scotland. So I think this vote will be decided on emotions. That’s where the “Yes” vote has all the happy tunes. And bagpipes have a strong track record of men following them into battle. The “Yes” campaign cries “Freedom from Westminster”. Well, who wouldn’t be in favour of that? Most of the UK would echo that cry. Meanwhile, the “No” campaign relies on the ominous tunes much loved in horror movies to signify bad things around the corner. The campaign gloomily reminds Scots that Westminster comes in handy when disasters are too big for small countries to handle on their own. The dividing lines then are liberation, freedom and destiny on one side (piped in with all the tartan pomp) versus risk aversion on the other (spoken in sombre Sunday sermon tones). This paints the “No” campaign into a dark corner – defending the status quo and talking only of threats and things going wrong. Banks collapsing, fish wars with Iceland, the return of the Vikings, plagues of locusts! All scary, but hardly up-lifting visions of the future. So first, let’s let the Scots feel the love and then excite them about our better future together. On feeling the love, let’s return to Quebec. What swung the vote in Quebec in the final days? Well, on 27th October, just 3 days before the vote, there was a Unity March in Montreal. 100,000 Canadians came from all over to ask the Quebecois to vote “No” and stay with them in Canada. Plane, train and bus companies put on cheap travel to get them there. It’s widely agreed that this made the difference. People felt the love. Why doesn’t the “No” campaign ask those English, Welsh and Northern Irish who love Scotland to attend a mass Unity March this summer. I suggest a march through Edinburgh, from the port of Leith, around an outer estate, up through the magnificence of the historic core and ending with an evening of torches and beacons on Arthur’s Seat.

The second approach is to out-trump the “No” campaign and make a better offer on independence. But a different sort of independence. It is clear that “freedom from Westminster” is an effective rallying point. But the “No” campaign should adopt a better slogan “Freedom from Westminster … and Holyrood”. It should urgently put forward a vision of radical decentralisation – not just of Uk powers but also those already held by the Scottish Government. An offer that if Scotland stays in the UK, there will be a dramatic decentralisation to Scotland’s distinctive cities, islands, highlands and lowlands. Let’s mainline into the diversity of Scotland and the different identities and needs of its communities. This is an offer that would never be made by the “Yes” campaign, which comprises too many centralists, too many Statists. But let’s give those who want more devolution, more independence, a more exciting choice. I mean real power – taxes, benefits, public services, business regulation, planning policy, etc. The sort of power that US states have. Like nothing else we have seen in the UK. Let’s go further and offer them the chance to ask for whatever they think will work. But let’s not be shy to offer things which currently belong to Holyrood. The UK Parliament can still legislate to impose a devolution within Scotland if the Scottish Government is against, but the people are for it. It is for the Scots to suggest the geographies. But’s let’s sell a vision of freedom from Westminster and Holyrood. Let’s talk of powerful, independent cities governing their own future. A Greater Glasgow as a magnet for highly skilled migrants rapidly becoming the UK’s second city. A Greater Edinburgh retaining its 90,000 students and turning them into the entrepreneurs and experts who make it Europe’s knowledge capital. An Aberdeen that is free to reinvest its current prosperity into a future other than oil and gas – just like other energy capitals around the world. Orkney and Shetland gaining the same status as the Channel Islands, becoming an oil rich boom location. The Highlands free to make the most of its wonderful natural resources. A Lowlands that finds its own balance between conserving its quiet ways and revving up a more dynamic economy. Different school systems. Different approaches to health. New financial incentives to crack endemic poverty. A local freedom to compete in the world to attract the best people and the smartest investment to Scotland. A freedom to compete with each other in Scotland. A better and more attractive chance for to seize control of your destiny.

The third approach is offer some new forms of union. Union that gives Scotland what it can’t get on its own. Here are just a few examples. Firstly, let’s not be frightened about dealing with cultural integration. I’d start with sport. Scots cheering for Mo Farah in the London Olympics said everything about what a modern union should look like. Football is the national game of Scotland. It is also the national game of England. Let’s agree now (before the miseries of Rio) that we will enter a Great Britain team in the 2018 World Cup. At least that means that Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish players can get to the World Cup …. and that we might just make it beyond the quarter finals. Let’s also open up the English Premier League and the Championship to Scots football clubs. Nothing has helped refresh the Anglo-Welsh relationship as much as the promotion of Cardiff and Swansea to the Premier League. Being in the EPL is probably the best global awareness raiser for UK cities. Let’s have Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and others on the newly renamed British Premier League and Championship fixture lists. Secondly, let’s invest in our joint future. We need to combine our forces to help our premier universities. The UK has 17 out of the world’s top 100 universities in the QS rankings. Three of these (Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews) are in Scotland. But we face fierce competition to maintain or improve on this position. Only massive UK-scale investment in science and technology will realise our potential to attract the very best academics, to recruit the most financially attractive overseas students, to finance spin-out businesses and to retain the best graduates in the city in which they learn. If Scotland goes independent, its universities will be ruled out of this investment. If Scotland stays, then the excellence of its universities means it quite a disproportionate share of this investment. We have to massively increase our investment in science and technology research over the next 10 years. So let’s announce it now and create a big carrot to stay and access the UK funds. Another area to tackle together is immigration. Whilst the scale of recent immigration is a major public concern in England, it plays differently in Scotland. All countries in the UK want immigration to be better controlled. But the English often forget that Scotland has been fighting against population stagnation and decline. In 2002, it faced its lowest population for 30 years. The last decade, however, has seen a 5% increase in the population, with immigration being the biggest reason. The second biggest reason is incoming English residents. With a recent tail-off in the birthrate, an ageing population, depopulation in a number of local areas and a lower life expectancy than the UK as a whole, Scotland has different immigration needs to the wider UK. It doesn’t take independence to solve this. It is entirely possible that geographically-limited visas could be issued for people to live, work and study in Scotland, without the same rights in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. For example, Scotland could be more generous than England in letting students extend their stay beyond university (when it currently loses large numbers of highly talented young people) if they have a job or further study in Scotland. It’s the same as an employer sponsored work permit. These are just 3 examples. In remaking the relationship, we need to think creatively and collaboratively along similar lines.

Maybe it was spending my honeymoon in Glasgow that always make me think of the Union as a marriage. But let’s not kid ourselves that if Scotland files for divorce in September that England and Scotland will just carry on, as independent states, as “best friends”. There are so many people who started on amicable divorces and, after the lawyers and the disputes, ended up with lifelong resentment and feuding. Just imagine how ugly the break-up will be – what happens to vital military bases, who gets the bad bank liabilities, who is able to use sterling, who gets access to the EU, etc. Often people say that after the divorce process there is just no love left, only ill-will.

Who is up for my 3-point plan – a Unity March in Edinburgh this summer, an offer of freedom from both Westminster and Holyrood, plus some creative new ways to refresh our marriage? This will be a debate settled by the heart, not the head. So Brits, let your love out…. A “Yes” vote for that at least?